Tulsa judge rules Flock surveillance unconstitutional

Federal court finds Flock's passive vehicle tracking violates Fourth Amendment rights

A federal judge in Tulsa, Oklahoma ruled that a sheriff’s deputy violated a woman’s Fourth Amendment rights by conducting an unlicensed search of Flock Safety for her license plate. The deputy used the woman’s Flock travel history to justify searching her vehicle, where allegedly 91 pounds of meth was discovered. Judge Sara Hill characterized Flock as 'indiscriminate mass surveillance' that passively tracks all vehicles passing network-connected cameras at all times without individual targeting. The ruling mandates that all evidence obtained after the Flock search must be suppressed as 'fruit of a poisonous tree.'

This decision directly challenges Flock’s passive tracking mechanism, which states have announced plans to discontinue. The ruling does not establish binding legal precedent but represents one of the first federal judicial decisions deeming Flock searches unconstitutional. Senator Bernie Sanders has introduced the Block Flock Act to prohibit federal agencies from using automated license plate readers like Flock, while Flock CEO Garretty Langley proposed a compromise between privacy and safety and offered voluntary employee buyouts.

This ruling moves privacy as a basic need by weakening law enforcement’s ability to access passive surveillance data without individual consent. When surveillance becomes gatekept by judicial authority rather than state practice, it reduces friction for economic participation and free society. The next critical step is whether states like Florida and Texas will follow through on their announced plans to cease using Flock technology, given the ruling’s lack of binding precedent and the 'allegedly' discovered meth weight in the case.

Source: TechCrunch